With respect to the Listeriosis Investigative Review: (a) what is the status of each of the 57 recommendations contained in the report of Sheila Weatherill released in July 2009; (b) who did Ms. Weatherill interviewed; (c) were any of those interviewed provided with any or all of the report prior to its being completed by the investigator; (d) what are the names of all consultants as well as all seconded staff from any other federal department or agency who assisted the investigator; and (e) what was the total cost of the investigation including the cost of staff, contracts, travel and rents?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Guelph. They know that 350 parts per million is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Exceeding that limit will seriously endanger our food, water and ecosystem security.

My constituents implore all federal parties to engage and participate in proactive, constructive environmental solutions by passing the climate change accountability act to spur the government into action.

The government said in the throne speech, “Nowhere is a commitment to principled policy, backed by action, needed more than in addressing climate change”. The reality, of course, is that the Conservative Party has sabotaged global environmental progress through its obstructionist tactics at the Copenhagen climate summit and completely failed to address this issue in Canada.

I present this petition on behalf of my constituents. I have a second and third petition as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition signed by my constituents of Guelph who are seeking federal action to strengthen animal transportation regulations. Animals that become injured or diseased during transport both suffer and threaten the quality, health and safety of Canadian food products. Canada's allowable animal transport times are among the longest in the industrialized world and are not consistent with scientific findings on animal welfare during transport.

This petition calls on the Government of Canada to amend the animal transportation regulations under Canada's Health of Animals Act to be consistent with the findings of the EU scientific committee on animal health and welfare.

In October I seconded Bill C-468, sponsored by the member for Brossard—La Prairie, to improve the lives of Canadian farm animals during long distance transport and to protect the health of Canadians.

My constituents believe that the current regulations are outdated and in need of revision, and I present this petition on their behalf.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by my constituents of Guelph who wish the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare. There is scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain, and all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering.

Over one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood, and many others rely on animals for companionship. I present this petition on behalf of my constituents in support of the universal declaration on animal welfare.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions from my riding today, one from the people of Trois-Rives and one from the people of Hérouxville.

The petitioners are calling on the government to maintain its moratorium on closing rural post offices. They join thousands of other petitioners across Quebec who are urging the minister responsible for Canada Post to maintain postal services in rural areas. These services are very important to the people there, as are the hundreds of jobs involved.

It is clear that the public truly wants to retain these rural post offices.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition today, calling on the Government of Canada to reinstate funding to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.

The petitioners want the government to know that university climate research is primarily funded by the foundation in question and that, since 2008, despite a number of requests, the government has still not renewed funding.

So far, no other granting body has committed to taking over for the foundation in funding climate science research.

Interruptions in funding for climate science may cause experts to leave Canada and some research groups to shut down. It takes decades to develop such groups, and their disappearance would not only negate the significant investments of time and money made in the past but would also be wasteful if ongoing research projects could not run their course.

The loss of Canadian expertise in climate science would decrease our ability to predict and adapt to climate change.

For these reasons, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reinstate research funding to the foundation, without making changes to its mission or directions.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present a petition today with signatures of residents from right across the GTA in support of North Korean refugees.

The petitioners are concerned about the plight of refugees from North Korea who have escaped North Korea, gone to China, and are then routinely being sent back to North Korea. Members will know there is an appalling disregard for their human rights and they are punished by the brutal North Korean regime.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to support the NDP Motion No. 383 and vigorously participate in the effort to support these refugees from North Korea and ensure that they are not sent back to North Korea, but instead are sent to South Korea or other safe havens.

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising. The airlines have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules have to be posted at the airport and the airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

This type of legislation has been in effect now in Europe for five years. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than they do flying in Canada? If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing. The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by dozens of Canadians, calls on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the earthquake victims in Chile. As the House knows, on February 27 an 8.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in southern Chile. The Chilean-Canadian community has been mobilized in Winnipeg. They have put on two very successful fundraising events in the last few weeks.

When will the Prime Minister and the government give the same treatment to the earthquake victims in Chile as they did for the earthquake victims in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the earthquake victims in Chile?

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous citizens from new Brunswick and the east coast of Canada calling on the government to carry out a human rights impact study when it comes to free trade with Colombia. They are saying to the government that we need a fair trade agreement with Colombia, not a free trade agreement.

I would impress upon all members of the House to realize that there are literally tens of thousands of people who are signing petitions when it comes to Bill C-2, the free trade bill on Colombia, formerly known as Bill C-23. Even though we have seen it stop and start again, Canadians across this land from coast to coast to coast are clearly saying no to Bill C-2.

They are saying that we need a human rights impact study carried out before we enter into any agreements. I am pleased to present this on behalf of them.

Mr. Speaker, following up on my colleague from Welland, I too am presenting a few hundred names of petitioners who are concerned about the Canada-Colombia trade deal. It is important to note, particularly for Liberal members, that all of these petitioners come from the riding of Kings—Hants and the region of Wolfville. Those petitioners profoundly disagree with the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, who has tried to give a rubber stamp to this trade agreement.

Colombia has the worst record in the world for killing labour activists, and forced and violent displacement of rural Afro-Colombians and aboriginal people. Because of that horrendous track record and all of those reasons, these petitioners are calling upon Parliament to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal until an independent human rights impact assessment is carried out. These few hundred constituents of Kings—Hants are asking Parliament to reject the deal.

Mr. Speaker, I too have petitions from the riding of Kings—Hants. The petitioners want the government to stop this bill that would have Colombia access Canada through the free trade agreement.

The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal until an independent human rights impact assessment is carried out and to negotiate the agreement along the principles of fair trade, which would take environmental and social impacts fully into account while genuinely respecting labour rights and the rights of all affected parties.

Like I said a while ago, these petitions are all from Kings—Hants. There is a PS on this petition. The petitioners would like to know when their member of Parliament is going to start listening to them.

On Monday, March 22, 2010, the committee agreed to re-adopt its report on Bill C-304 that was agreed to in the previous session on December 10, 2009. On March 24, 2010, the committee's report on Bill C-304 was tabled in the House.

The Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and may, if it chooses to do so, receive an unconditional payment equal to the total of the amounts that would otherwise be paid within its territory under this Act.

During the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-304, the chair ruled that this amendment was inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope and principle of the bill agreed to at second reading. The chair stated:

...Bill C-304 provides for the minister responsible for CMHC to consult with the provincial ministers to establish a national housing strategy. This amendment proposes to allow the Province of Quebec to opt out of the national strategy. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this opt-out provision is contrary to the principle of Bill C-304, and therefore is inadmissible.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-304 would require the development of a national housing strategy. Clause 3 of the bill would require the responsible minister to consult all provincial and territorial ministers on the development of such a strategy. Amending clause 3 to allow a province to opt out of a national housing strategy is inconsistent with the purpose of the bill and with clause 3 in particular.

There is no suggestion in the bill as adopted at second reading to support the addition of a provincial exemption from the national strategy. Obviously, such a change would fundamentally alter the purpose of the bill.

I regret that opposition members on the committee overturned the chair's ruling and the amendment now appears as clause 3.1 in Bill C-304, as reported to the House.

I would note that the chair's ruling on Bill C-304 is similar to the October 20, 2005 ruling of the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on an amendment to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act. That ruling stated:

I'm informed that amendment BQ-1...is inadmissible. That may be explained by the fact that Bill S-3 reinforces the binding nature of the government's obligations across Canada whereas this amendment is contrary to that spirit. Instead of reinforcing it, it instead provides for different treatment for Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill C-304 is beyond the scope and principle of the bill agreed to at second reading. Therefore, clause 3.1 of Bill C-304 should be ruled out of order.